Interview plan template

Use Template
to edit & run interviews

Digital PR & Earned Media Lead interview questionsEarned Media Round — The Coverage That Did Nothing round

A 60 min interview plan with a time-boxed script, what each question is for, and the signals to score against. Key skills: Reading a coverage report whose count is inflated by syndication, valuing a placement by editorial context rather than by a vendor's domain score, building a story out of data the company already holds, and knowing where earned media stops and paid placement begins.

Click "Use template" to edit

The brief and the report

10 min
•

I'm [YOUR_NAME] and I own growth at [COMPANY_NAME]. Two things about the hour. I'm going to show you work my team did and ask you what it was worth, and the honest answer may be "not much" — you will not offend anybody, including me, and a candidate who tells me the quarter was fine is a candidate I learn nothing from. And by the end I want something concrete: a campaign you would run next quarter, built from something we already have rather than something we would have to commission, with a way of telling whether it worked that does not depend on me trusting your judgement. If you want to disagree with how we measured any of this, that is the round, not a detour.

•

Here's the coverage report from our biggest campaign last quarter. Forty-seven placements. My CMO was pleased. Organic was flat, referral was flat, and nobody has been able to tell me whether it worked. Here's the placement list with the URLs. Ten minutes — tell me what you want to know, and open whatever you want to open.

What this question is for, and what to listen for

Purpose

The opening discriminator and it resolves on whether the candidate treats the count as data or as a claim. Forty-seven is not forty-seven of anything; it is two editorial pieces and a syndication tail. A candidate who opens two of the URLs inside the first three minutes and notices the text is identical has done this job.

Signals to score

  • Opens several of the placements rather than reasoning about the list abstractly
  • Notices that many carry identical text and names syndication as the mechanism
  • Asks whether a wire service was used, and treats that as the explanation for the count
  • Checks the links themselves: whether they exist at all, and what rel attributes they carry
  • Separates a mention from a link from a followed link, and refuses to sum them
  • Asks which placements the target audience actually reads, rather than which have the biggest vendor score
  • Asks what the campaign was trying to achieve before judging whether it did
  • Asks what "flat" means and over what window, and whether referral was ever a plausible outcome
  • Treats two genuine editorial pieces as the real result and asks how those two came about
  • Asks who wrote the report and what it counted, without being sneering about it

Follow-up questions

  • Forty-seven is what the tool reported. Is the tool wrong?
  • Which of those placements would you have been happy with, if any?
  • Some of them are on sites with very high domain scores. Doesn't that count for something?
  • Referral traffic was flat. Should it have moved?
  • If I gave you the same budget again, what's the first thing you'd change?

What the placements were worth

18 min
•

So take the two real pieces and tell me what they were worth, mechanically. Then a harder version of the same question. Our AI search work found that when an assistant answers a buying question about our category, it assembles the answer from review sites, forums and journalism — not from our website. Does that change what earned media is for here? And if it does, does it change what you would go after?

What this question is for, and what to listen for

Purpose

The question that separates this role's current version from its previous one. Links remain the durable mechanism and a candidate who abandons them for a fashionable story is wrong; but a mention with no link now has a route to influence that it did not have five years ago, and a candidate who cannot articulate that route is behind. The round wants both held at once.

Signals to score

  • Values a followed editorial link on a relevant publication as the durable asset, and says why relevance beats reach
  • Knows that nofollow and sponsored are treated as hints rather than absolute directives, and does not overstate what that means
  • Says plainly that an unlinked mention passes no link signal, before discussing what else it might do
  • Articulates the route by which unlinked coverage matters now: it is a source an assistant may retrieve and cite
  • Names the specific surfaces that get cited for commercial questions — review aggregators, forums, journalism, video — rather than saying "AI"
  • Does not abandon links, and resists the framing that link building is over
  • Distinguishes coverage that states checkable facts about us from coverage that merely names us, and says the first is more useful to a retrieval system
  • Raises consistency: coverage repeating wrong facts about us is actively harmful in a way it was not before
  • Asks whether we know which sources actually get cited for our queries, rather than assuming
  • Proposes going after fewer, more relevant, more factual placements rather than more of them

Earning the next one

20 min
•

Next quarter. You can't commission research and you can't buy placement. What we do have is our own data: we process bookings for thousands of independent businesses, so we know things about that market nobody else can see. Build me the story. Tell me what you'd analyse, what the headline would be, who you'd take it to, and what you'd expect back.

What this question is for, and what to listen for

Purpose

Data-led earned media is the only reliable way to earn genuine editorial coverage at this budget, and it turns on a specific skill: finding the question a journalist would ask that our data happens to be able to answer. A candidate who proposes a survey has not read the constraint; one who proposes an analysis with no news value has not read the audience.

Signals to score

  • Proposes an analysis of first-party data rather than a survey or a commissioned study
  • Finds an angle with genuine news value — a trend, a regional difference, a seasonal effect, a counterintuitive finding
  • Names the audience before the outlet: who cares about this, and which desk covers them
  • Says what the headline would be, in a journalist's words rather than a marketer's
  • Anticipates the methodology questions a journalist will ask — sample, period, how representative
  • Raises privacy and aggregation before being asked, and says what could not be published
  • Plans for the finding being boring, and says what happens then
  • Proposes taking it to a small number of named outlets rather than a wire release
  • Offers an exclusive or a first look as the mechanism for getting editorial rather than syndicated coverage
  • Names what the company gets even if coverage is thin: a reusable asset, a citable page, a fact that lives on
•

Now the measurement. Six months from now, how do I know that campaign was worth doing? Give me what you'd report, and be specific about which parts are evidence and which parts are inference.

What this question is for, and what to listen for

Purpose

Earned media has the worst measurement problem of any function in marketing and the honest answers are the useful ones. A candidate who promises attribution is either naive or selling; one who has nothing is unemployable at this level. The separation between evidence and inference is the whole score.

Signals to score

  • Separates directly observable outcomes from inferred ones, explicitly and without being asked twice
  • Counts links and mentions as leading indicators rather than as results
  • Names something checkable: referring domains gained, the specific pages that gained links, whether those pages moved
  • Proposes measuring whether the cited sources changed what assistants say, and admits the causal chain is long
  • Declines to attribute revenue to a placement, and says why the attribution would be fictional
  • Offers brand search volume as a signal while naming its confounds
  • Proposes a before-and-after on a specific, narrow claim rather than on the business
  • Suggests a holdout or a staggered regional rollout where the campaign structure allows it, and says when it does not
  • States what would make them call the campaign a failure, in advance
  • Reports the two or three things they are confident about and does not pad the deck with the rest

What you would not do

12 min
•

Two to finish. First: name something in this discipline you know how to do and would not do here, and tell me how you'd defend that to a CMO who wants the number up this quarter. Second: a journalist writes something about us that's accurate and damaging, and it starts getting cited. What happens in the first forty-eight hours?

What this question is for, and what to listen for

Purpose

The first half finds out whether the candidate has a line before somebody tests it. The second is the scenario this role will actually face, the word accurate is doing the work, and the answers separate people who understand earned media from people who understand publicity.

Signals to score

  • Names something specific and declines it on the merits — paid links presented as editorial, undisclosed sponsorship, fabricated survey data, review incentivisation, private blog networks
  • Knows that paid links passing endorsement without disclosure violate search engines' published policies, and says what the enforcement risk actually is
  • Defends the refusal in the CMO's currency — detection, enforcement, the cost of the recovery — as well as on principle
  • Reads "accurate" in the second scenario and does not propose fighting the facts
  • Distinguishes correcting an inaccuracy from disputing an unflattering truth, and treats them completely differently
  • Escalates internally before responding externally, and names who needs to be in the room
  • Considers that a response can amplify a story that would otherwise stay small
  • Raises that the piece is now a durable source and may be retrieved and cited long after the news cycle ends
  • Proposes addressing the underlying problem as the only durable remedy, and says so plainly
  • Gives sales and support something accurate to say inside the first day
•

That's the hour. What I write up is the campaign you designed and the failure condition you set for it, and I'll tell you what we do next quarter either way. Two things before you decide about us. The forty-seven-placement report is not a story from a previous job — it is our last quarter, my team produced it in good faith, and whoever takes this role has to change how that gets counted without making anybody feel stupid, which is a harder problem than the campaign. And we have never used our own booking data for anything external, so the constraint I put on you in the second half is the actual opportunity here and it is unclaimed. [RECRUITER_NAME] will come back to you within [NUMBER] working days.

Use Template
to edit & run interviews
Interview Template
Position
Digital PR & Earned Media Lead
Round
Earned Media Round — The Coverage That Did Nothing for 60 min
Key skills
Reading a coverage report whose count is inflated by syndication, valuing a placement by editorial context rather than by a vendor's domain score, building a story out of data the company already holds, and knowing where earned media stops and paid placement begins

Digital PR & Earned Media Lead interviews — common questions

Who is this Digital PR & Earned Media Lead interview plan for?
It is written for the interviewer, not the candidate: the hiring manager, engineer or panel member running the Earned Media Round — The Coverage That Did Nothing round for a Digital PR & Earned Media Lead role. It gives you a 60 min script to follow in the conversation — 5 questions with what each one is for and the signals to score against — so you are not writing the round from scratch the night before.
What does the Earned Media Round — The Coverage That Did Nothing round assess?
This round is focused on: Reading a coverage report whose count is inflated by syndication, valuing a placement by editorial context rather than by a vendor's domain score, building a story out of data the company already holds, and knowing where earned media stops and paid placement begins. It works through The brief and the report, What the placements were worth, Earning the next one and What you would not do, scoring against 50 observable signals, with follow-up prompts on 1 of the 5 questions for going deeper where an answer is thin.
How is the 60 min split up?
The brief and the report (10 min), What the placements were worth (18 min), Earning the next one (20 min), What you would not do (12 min). The timings are there so the round stays on schedule and every candidate gets the same shape of interview — which is what makes two candidates comparable afterwards.